The market for DVRs has shifted a lot and while TiVo's system was wonderful, it's hard to get people to pay you a monthly fee for a service that's included for free with your cable package. Companies are often offering networked DVR service with unlimited storage - they record it in their data center and you just stream it later.
TiVo really needed to pivot and simply didn't. TiVo should have become another Roku, but they were probably worried about cannibalizing their DVR revenue. They had the operating system and hardware to beat Roku to the market - or even become the primary alternative to Roku for years after Roku had launched. Roku launched in 2008 and TiVo could have followed. FireTV and AndroidTV launched in 2014 so there was a huge window in there for TiVo (and Chromecast was 2013 so that doesn't change things much).
TiVo was focused on getting individuals to pay them $X per month for service. Roku figured out that it would be a lot easier to get all the streaming companies to give them a cut rather than getting it from the end users as well as being a platform to serve ads to end users.
If TiVo had looked at Roku and said "we can do that even better," they would have had a very different future. TiVo launched a Roku competitor in 2020 based on AndroidTV, but that was way too little and way too late. Back in the late 2000s and early 2010s, TiVo had an absolutely amazing OS. They needed to release a Roku competitor stripped of the DVR bit for the cord-cutting streamers. They needed to pivot their business model toward the service-revenue-cut and ad-revenue model that Roku went after. They needed to see that cable and satellite was a dead-end as those companies would try to cut them out of the loop with their internal DVR products (and even if TiVo were better, most customers wouldn't want to pay extra for it).
TiVo should have pivoted 15 years ago and become one of a couple dominant streaming box players. Instead, Amazon and Google followed Roku into the market even though TiVo had 6 years to enter that market and had a polished OS and great reputation at the time. TiVo feels a bit like Nokia. Nokia ignored smartphones long enough that they kinda faded away - and then their effort was too little, too late.
They have! https://aws.amazon.com/outposts/
What does this actually mean? An AI-authored press release? A customer support bot message?
In April 2016, Rovi acquired TiVo for $1.1 billion.[8]
In December 2019, it was announced that TiVo would merge with Xperi Corporation. The merger completed in May 2020.[9]
Xperi itself also split apart in 2022, so it's effectively 3 companies removed from its original roots. Basically at this point it is only valuable for the vague nostalgia consumers have for the brand.You can't even make a backup of the shows and movies you "buy", which just means "license", today.
I still use Internet based services, for example I might find a new band because someone on Instagram posted about them. Or maybe I listen to an album on streaming before deciding if I'm buying it. Oh and some live music venues have Youtube live streaming (e.g. Smalls jazz club). With movies, of course I might watch a movie trailer or a review on YouTube.
Speaking of movies, the situation is different because unlike music, I can't actually find most of my favourites on streaming services. However more often than not, you can rent them online, so I might rent (but never buy!) a movie through Apple, YouTube etc., then if I like it and think I want to watch it again, I will buy a Blu-ray. But I kinda gave up on pure streaming services such as Netflix etc. since their catalogue is so shallow.
This obviously doesn't work for everyone, if your way of listening to music is just "Hey Alexa play a smooth jazz playlist while I cook" then of course streaming is the right thing for you. Same if you just like to watch movies casually and you're not a film buff, in that case Netflix & co. are OK.
I felt like they had consumer awareness at one point. Maybe if they went with there own premium streaming service, as oppose to only trying ad-based streaming services (like Pluto) OR continuing to try to make money charging people monthly for a subscription to use a device they first have to purchase.**
Instead they kept the old business model and went to more of a business-to-business service oriented offerings. Selling metadata, APIs, TV Guides, Car infotainment, all oddities IMO as most IPTV providers like to use turn key solutions.
I actually use the Tivo Stream 4K as my smart device. Works great, gives me 4K, can download Android TV apps, and is cheap $35.
Not a fan of ad-based TV (which is the Tivo+ thing, like Pluto, etc...), but I use it mostly for YouTube, Plex, etc.
--
*: My Plex server uses my HDHomerun for live tv; TiVo could have been both if it was more open. A TiVo competitor to Plex's Pass + Live TV service could of been there subscription revenue, and a TiVo competitor to HDHomeRun's devices could of replaced their DVR revenue. They could take the Tivo Edge, open it way up (as the HDHomeRun takes cable and give you actual m3u8's; this lets you decide where you view or record TV, and makes the device actually useful for commercial deployments as well (offices, restaurants, dorms, hotels, etc...). Pretty much: add features similar to Plex (i.e. combining my OTA/Cable recordings with my local media) + Plex's Live TV (Tivo already has the richest data and a sleeker guide) and combine the Tivo Edge CableCard and OTA in one device. This would appeal to many users, bring the hardware price down as it's one model, and provide them with both revenue streams like they are used to.
If you don't own the content, you get squeezed. Hulu, Spotify all of these guys get nickle-dimed into oblivion.
Netflix understood this deeply creating one of the biggest, successful pivots in startup-dom
Ironically never once actually used a TiVo but still RIP was a cool idea and I got free drives out of it.
("Tivoization is the practice of designing hardware that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license like the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), but uses hardware restrictions or digital rights management (DRM) to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware." [0])
zdw•1h ago
For OTA recording, I've used Windows Media Center but it went out of support, and more recently the HDHomerun DVR, which both worked decently.